CAR_Public/120702.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 2, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 129

                             Headlines

ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls 45,000 Kawasaki Cordless Drills
BEN HILL COUNTY, GA: Defendants' Family Members Sue Court
BIG CAT: Recalls 170 Catbike Musashi Bicycles Due to Crash Risk
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Court Revives Overtime Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Violations

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over False "Naturally Raised" Animals Ad
CHULA VISTA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Mobile Phone Users Tax
DAINA SHIPPING: Two Legal Firms Mull Class Action
EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Accused of Maximizing Overdraft Fees
FANNIE MAE: Winnebago County Joins Transfer Tax Class Action

FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Two Missouri Suits
FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Celexa & Lexapro MDL
FOREST LABORATORIES: "Martinez" Suit Remains Stayed in New York
FOREST LABORATORIES: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suits

INTUIT INC: Defends Suits Over TurboTax Tax Preparation Software
JAMAICA PUBLIC: Energy Minister Lawyers Defend Exclusive License
JUICY COUTURE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
KOREA: Lawyers Mull Class Action Against Lawmakers
LEGG MASON: Defends Suits Over Violations of Securities Laws

MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over False Vaccine Data
MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
NORTH COAST: Faces Class Action Over Gas Lease
PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Bluetooth Headset Suit
PNC BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $90 Million

PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Grants Class Action Certification
REDDY ICE: Bankruptcy Court Approves Class Suits' Settlements
SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 19,650 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Med. Equipment Suit
STORM FINANCIAL: September 10 Trial Set for Class Action

SYNGENTA: Judge Approves Request to Pay Settlement Administrator
WET SEAL: Appeal From Denial of Class Standing Remains Pending
WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Remain Pending
WET SEAL: California Court Granted Bid to Compel Arbitration


                          *********

ALLTRADE TOOLS: Recalls 45,000 Kawasaki Cordless Drills
-------------------------------------------------------
About 45,000 Kawasaki cordless drills were voluntarily recalled by
manufacturer, Wuxi Xinju Electric Tools Co., Ltd. of Wuxi, China,
and importer, Alltrade Tools LLC, of Long Beach, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The trigger switches can short and generate excessive heat posing
a burn hazard.

Alltrade Tools has received 33 reports of incidents, including one
minor burn injury.

This recall involves Kawasaki Cordless Drills, model 691761, sold
in green and black color combination, with a 19.2v battery pack
and certain serial numbers.  "Alltrade Tools LLC" and "Made in
China" are printed in white lettering on the left side of the
drills.  The drill's model and serial numbers are located on a
label on the right side of the drill.  The recalled drills have
the following serial numbers:

       Kawasaki Cordless Drill Serial Numbers
       --------------------------------------
       From 11030 30201 to 11030 33656
       From 11040 00001 to 11040 17120
       From 11060 00001 to 11060 07340
       From 11070 00001 to 11070 05984
       From 11070 16801 to 11070 20640

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12740.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Costco stores nationwide from May 2011 through February 2012 for
about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drills and
register at http://www.alltrade2.fox-international.com/to receive
a free drill, including shipping.  Alltrade Tools is directly
contacting consumers who purchased the recalled drills.  Consumers
should not return the drills to the store where purchased.  For
more information, contact Alltrade Tools toll-free at (800) 727-
7420 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday Pacific
Time, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.alltrade2.fox-
international.com/


BEN HILL COUNTY, GA: Defendants' Family Members Sue Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a Georgia
circuit court and two county sheriffs prohibit family members of
criminal defendants from entering court unless their family
members plead guilty, according to a federal class action.

Four named plaintiffs sued the Cordele Judicial Circuit's Chief
Superior Court Judge John Pridgen, two other judges in the
circuit, and Ben Hill County Sheriff Bobby McLemore and Crisp
County Sheriff Donnie Haralson.

One plaintiff, the Rev. James Davis III, who counsels defendants
in these courts, says he was involved in a previous lawsuit
against the same courts and sheriffs, and that "he joins this
lawsuit because violations continue to occur."

Lead plaintiff Beverly Fuqua and two others seek to represent the
class, including the general public and family members and loved
ones of criminal defendants appearing in the Ben Hill and Crisp
County Superior Courts of the Cordele Judicial Circuit.

"Crisp County deputy told one family member she could not watch
arraignments unless her loved one entered a guilty plea; if he
pleaded not guilty, she would not be able to enter," the complaint
states.  "The general public -- citizens with no relative involved
in court proceedings such as Reverend Davis who seeks to minister
and comfort members of his congregation -- are generally
completely barred from attending and observing the proceedings."

According to the complaint: "Plaintiff Beverly Fuqua is a resident
of Fitzgerald, Georgia, located in Ben Hill County.  Plaintiff
Fuqua attempted to attend her son's court appearances in the Ben
Hill County Law Enforcement Center courtroom on three occasions --
January 23, 2012, in February 2012, and March 29, 2012.  Each
time, a bailiff told her she was not allowed in the courtroom and
that she would have to wait outside until her son's case was
called.  Each time she waited at least two hours in the outside
lobby, unable to watch any hearings, because her son entered a not
guilty plea.

"Plaintiff Joyce Scales is a resident of Lithonia, Georgia,
located in DeKalb County.  On March 15, 2011, plaintiff Scales and
her sister drove over two hours to see her incarcerated nephew,
who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, appear for
arraignments in the Crisp County Jail courtroom.  Given her
nephew's mental health needs, Ms. Scales wanted to be present at
his arraignment to both show support and ensure he was treated
fairly.  When she and her sister asked to enter the jail
courtroom, however, a deputy told them they would have to wait in
the lobby.  According to the deputy, plaintiff Scales and her
sister would not be allowed in if their nephew did not plead
guilty.  Over the course of two hours, Ms. Scales and her sister
peeked through the courtroom door whenever it opened to get a
glimpse of their nephew.  After hours of waiting, a deputy told
Ms. Scales that her nephew entered a not guilty plea; as a result,
the deputy barred Ms. Scales and her sister from entering the
courtroom."

The class claims the courts and sheriffs are violating the
Constitution: "Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals
who attempt to watch Superior Court guilty plea proceedings,
sentencings, arraignments, calendar calls, bond hearings, and
other criminal proceedings in the Ben Hill and Crisp County jail
courtrooms are routinely met by sheriff's deputies who close
public hearings for a host of reasons -- none of which are legally
sufficient."

The class claims the defendants slam the courtroom doors though
neither the district attorneys' office nor any defendants ask that
the proceedings be closed, and despite a previous lawsuit from a
local college on behalf of a student who was denied access to the
court.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and nominal
damage for constitutional violations.

Ben Hill and Crisp counties are in south central Georgia.

A copy of the Complaint in Fuqua, et al. v. Pridgen, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-00093 (M.D. Ga.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/GaCourts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen Bright, Esq.
          Gerald Weber, Esq.
          Atteeyah Hollie, Esq.
          SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
          83 Poplar Street, N.W.
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 688-1202
          E-mail: sbright@schr.org
                  gweber@schr.org
                  ahollie@schr.org


BIG CAT: Recalls 170 Catbike Musashi Bicycles Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Cat Human Powered Vehicles LLC, of Winter Garden, Florida,
announced a voluntary recall of about 170 units of Catbike Musashi
recumbent bicycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle frame can crack, which can cause the rider to lose
control and crash.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves model year 2010 Catbike Musashi recumbent
bicycles.  The bicycles were sold in the following colors: black,
white, silver, yellow, orange, red, lime green, pink, blue, candy
purple, candy red, candy green, candy blue and sparkle orange.
"Musashi" is printed on the frame and "Catbike" is printed on the
seat, frame and headrest.  Serial numbers CBM0002 to CBM0170 are
included in this recall.  The serial number can be found
underneath the main frame where the seat bottom is located.  A
picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12207.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Catbike authorized dealers nationwide from
February 2010 through December 2010 for about $2,350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and
contact a Catbike dealer for a free frame replacement.  For
additional information, please contact Big Cat Human Powered
Vehicles toll-free at (866) 276-2281 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.catrike.com/


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ontario Court Revives Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that Ontario's
highest court has revived a five-year battle waged by teller Dara
Fresco against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce over whether
her employer illegally denied her and her co-workers across the
country C$600-million in overtime pay.

In three key rulings issued on June 26, the Ontario Court of
Appeal laid down new ground rules for class-action lawsuits
against employers over unpaid overtime.  While the U.S. has seen a
wave of such claims, legal observers say that despite these latest
rulings, they do not expect a deluge of new cases here.

The appeal court overturned lower court rulings that denied
Ms. Fresco's case the "certification" required for it to proceed
as a class action on behalf of 30,000 CIBC employees.  The appeal
court rejected a previous decision that there was no evidence of a
"systemic policy or practice of unpaid overtime at CIBC."

Despite being the representative plaintiff at the centre of the
high-stakes fight, Ms. Fresco is still employed by the bank.

The court made the move as it upheld the certification of a
similar class-action lawsuit filed by Cindy Fulawka, a personal
banker who worked for the Bank of Nova Scotia in Saskatchewan for
20 years.  Her lawsuit alleges that 10,000 Scotiabank employees
were denied overtime and demands C$350-million.  She filed her
case, with the same lawyers, after hearing about Ms. Fresco's
case.

But the three-judge panel overturned the certification of a case
filed by Canadian National Railway Co. employee Michael McCracken
over unpaid overtime.  This case differed from the lawsuits
against the banks, as it alleged that Mr. McCracken and other CN
"front-line supervisors" had been "misclassified" as managers and
denied overtime.

The appeal court ruled this could only be determined individually,
by assessing each employees' duties, denying the lawsuit class-
action status.  A CN spokesman declined to comment on the case.

In the cases against the banks, the plaintiffs alleged their
employers expected employees to work late but that their overtime
policies, such as requirements to secure approval before working
extra hours, made it difficult for employees to get paid. They
also alleged the banks had poor record-keeping systems for
overtime.

None of the allegations have been proven.  The rulings on June 26
allow the two cases to go ahead to trial as class actions.  The
banks in both cases have denied the allegations.  It was unclear
whether the banks would seek leave to appeal the decisions to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

In an e-mail, Scotiabank spokesman Andrew Chornenky said the bank
was disappointed with the decision and was considering its next
move.

"We are reviewing this decision and are keeping all options on the
table," he said.  "Scotiabank is committed to treating its
employees fairly, equitably and with respect and all our human
resources policies, including overtime policies, reflect these
principles."

In all three cases, a team of lawyers led by Louis Sokolov of Sack
Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and David O'Connor of Roy Elliott O'Connor
LLP, represented the plaintiffs.

"These decisions take into account the practical reality of
workplaces and the fact that employees may be quite reluctant to
make individual claims against their employers," Mr. O'Connor
said, calling on June 26 "a very good day for employees and access
to justice."

Mr. Sokolov said the rulings open the door for other groups of
employees to seek back pay. But he did not expect a rash of new
cases, noting that only a few have been filed since these two.

He said many banks and other large employers, prompted by these
class actions, reviewed their policies to ensure employees
entitled to overtime are now getting paid.

"Employers took a good hard look in the mirror, and looked at
their processes," he said.

CIBC did not respond to requests for comment on June 26.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Over Collection Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One
Bank and its debt collector send grieving families a "glossy
brochure purporting to educate the recipient about the probate
process," to trick family members into calling the collector about
debts that have been discharged in bankruptcy, a widow claims in a
federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Toni Nieto sued Phillips & Cohen Associates, a
collection agency based in Westampton, N.J., and Capital One Bank.

Ms. Nieto claims she received three letters addressed to "The
Estate of Trinidad Nieto" -- her late husband -- less than 3 weeks
after he died.

The alleged debts had been discharged in bankruptcy and Capital
One knew it, according to the complaint.

Then three more letters came with the glossy brochures, Ms. Nieto
says.  She claims the letters "are form letters, generated by
computer, and with the information specific to the recipient
inserted by the computer."

The complaint continues: "The envelope that carried each copy of
Exhibit B [the second set of three letters] also included a glossy
brochure purporting to educate the recipient about the probate
process.  In actuality, the brochure is intended to deceive a
decedent's family members to voluntarily contact Phillips about
debts that the family members do not owe.  A copy of the brochure
is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C.

"Each letter in Exhibit B stated: 'This collection agency is
licensed by the Division of Banking, P.O. Box 7876, Madison,
Wisconsin 53707.'

"Upon information and belief, Phillips is not licensed by the
Office of the Administrator of the Division of Banking, or any
other Wisconsin governmental agency.

"The alleged debts that Phillips were attempting to collect had
been discharged in plaintiff's and her husband's chapter 7
bankruptcy.  Plaintiff and her husband received a discharge on
October 15, 2010."

The complaint adds: "Capital One knew that the alleged debts
Capital One attempted to collect from plaintiff had been
discharged in bankruptcy.

"Phillips and Capital One attempted to use plaintiff's husband's
death to contact plaintiff and dupe her into paying these
discharged debts.

"It is the regular practice of Phillips and Capital One to attempt
to use a family member's death to contact the decedent's relatives
and dupe them into paying debts that have been discharged in
bankruptcy."

They do this to "capitalize on the death in the family," the widow
says in her complaint.

Ms. Nieto notes that bankruptcy proceedings are public record.
"There are banking and collection industry tools and software that
will identify debtors who have filed a bankruptcy and discharged
balances," the complaint states.

Ms. Nieto seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages for the
class, for federal and state credit, consumer and collection
violations, and for using "a communication which simulates legal
or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being
authorized, issued or approved by a government, governmental
agency or attorney-at-law when it is not."

A copy of the Complaint in Nieto v. Phillips & Cohen Associates,
Ltd., and Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. (E.D. Wis.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/CapOne.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  dsyrios@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over False "Naturally Raised" Animals Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chipotle Mexican Grill
falsely claims that its beef and chicken come from "naturally
raised animals," a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-05543 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/Chipotle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          E-mail: ss@aiwazian.com


CHULA VISTA, CA: Sued Over Illegal Mobile Phone Users Tax
---------------------------------------------------------
Doug Sherwin, writing for San Diego Source, reports that Casey
Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP and Capretz &
Associates filed a motion to certify a class of mobile phone users
seeking refunds for allegedly unlawful telephone users taxes
collected by the city of Chula Vista.  The proposed class action
seeks to refund money collected from mobile phone users by Chula
Vista.

The case is set to go to trial Jan. 18, and seeks millions of
dollars in restitution for allegedly illegal telephone users taxes
levied by the city.


DAINA SHIPPING: Two Legal Firms Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Carly Gibbs, writing for Bay of Plenty Times, reports that two
legal firms are preparing a class action lawsuit that is expected
to be the country's biggest environmental claim.

North South Environmental Law in Auckland, assisted by Holland
Beckett Lawyers (HOBEC) in Tauranga, has identified 150 claimants
affected by the Rena grounding -- and expects to add more in
coming weeks.

The claimants, all business owners, will become part of a joint
lawsuit to bring proceedings against Greece-based Rena owner Daina
Shipping Co.

The class action is understood to be the biggest negligence-based
environmental claim in New Zealand, only outdone in size by class
actions against finance and investment companies.

Legal representatives for Daina Shipping Co could not be contacted
for comment.

Robert Makgill, an expert in law of the sea and co-director of
North South Environmental Law, was approached by a number of Bay
of Plenty businesses after Rena hit Astrolabe Reef on October 5,
2011.

Mr. Makgill told the Bay of Plenty Times that as his list of
affected clients grew, he engaged local Tauranga firm HOBEC two
months ago, to help with proceedings by being the "face" of the
claim and helping assess claims against Daina Shipping Co.

HOBEC has now launched an advertising campaign in the Bay of
Plenty Times to notify affected businesses of the pending court
action.

"This story is not about the lawyers," Mr. Makgill said.

"It's not about the experts.  It's about the businesses.  There's
so many stories that people need to hear about.  A lot of the
claims are very strong and I think there's a good chance of
success."

Mr. Makgill is also preparing two separate claims against Daina
Shipping Co for two iwi, one of which is Ngati Awa, the recognized
statutory iwi for Motiti Island.

The class action had so far resulted in 150 businesses being
assessed and many others were waiting to see whether they had a
claim or not.  Legal costs to businesses were still being worked
through, but Mr. Makgill said there was a view to keeping costs at
zero or minimal.

"This is very much a public interest issue and something needed to
be done," he said.  "It's an action that represents the
community."

Proceedings would not be lodged until HOBEC was satisfied all
businesses that had lost money because of Rena had had an
opportunity to take part.

"Don't be put off by thinking your claim is too small," HOBEC
solicitor Jeremy Sparrow said.  "Together the claims add up."

Mount Maunganui businessman Nevan Lancaster was the "genesis" for
getting a large numbers of businesses to support class action when
he featured in the Bay of Plenty Times in March.

Mr. Lancaster runs kayak business Mount Cats and Yaks at Pilot Bay
and said he was out of pocket $5000.

Papamoa Beach Top 10 Holiday Resort manager Rebecca Crosby said
the business suffered significantly between October and April last
year.

The Rena grounding resulted in takings being down 30 per cent
between October and December.  Labour Weekend was the business'
worst Labour Weekend on record in years. Prior to October, takings
had been up for the first time in three years, since the recession
hit, she said.

"In the past 25 years since my parents have had the business,
we've had (plenty of) cyclonic summers and income has not
faltered."

Rena resulted in January takings at the holiday resort being down
by 18 per cent and February.  March and April were down too. May
was the first month the park did the same takings as the year
before.  This coming summer would be a test, Ms. Crosby said.

Tauranga crayfish operator and claimant Robert Mattock was forced
to shift his business to Whakatane for six weeks after the Rena
grounding and stop all exports of crayfish recovered from the
exclusion zone.

Ten months on his business continues to suffer because boating
exclusion zones, although condensed, remain in place.

He predicted they could still be there for another year to two
years, and continue to affect the number of crayfish pots he and
his crew of three were able to put down.

Mr. Mattock, who had operated his business in the Bay for 35
years, would not disclose how much money he had lost but said it
was "significant".

He has had to engage his accountant to prove lost earnings and
said it made sense to put together a joint claim because of legal
costs.  "If we didn't do it joint, I don't think we'd stand much
of a chance because of the sheer cost of getting it to court."

Mr. Mattock said it was incredibly frustrating that while Rena's
insurers were paying for the clean-up and recovery, businesses
were having to go through legal proceedings to recover their
losses.


EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Accused of Maximizing Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Irene Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated v. Educational Employees Credit Union, Cleo Bauer-
Papagni, Rick Browning, Dean Clark, Elizabeth Dooley, Paul
Hokokian, Carol Munshower, Frank Powell, David Roberts and Derek
Scharton, Case No. 5:12-cv-03272 (N.D. Calif., June 25, 2012) is
brought on behalf of consumers, who were subject to the alleged
deceptive re-ordering practice implemented by the Defendant and
its Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff alleges that this deceptive practice involves the
systematic manipulation and re-ordering of electronic debit
transaction from the highest dollar amount to the lowest dollar
amount.  Ms. Ramirez contends that the sole purpose of this
practice is to deplete the customer's available funds as quickly
as possible so as to maximize the amount of overdraft fees
collected by the Defendant.

Ms. Ramirez is a resident of the state of California.

EECU is one of the country's largest credit unions.  EECU is a
full service financial institution with approximately 200,000
members worldwide.  The Individual Defendants are members of the
Board of Directors of EECU.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fernando F. Chavez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FERNANDO F. CHAVEZ
          1530 The Alameda, Suite 301
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 971-3113
          Facsimile: (408) 971-0107
          E-mail: fchavez@chavez-deleon.com

               - and -

          Mitchell G. Allen, Esq.
          JACOBY & MEYERS
          1929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 600
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (800) 411-4529
          E-mail: Mitch.Allen@JacobyMeyers.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Camp, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM - BIRMINGHAM, LLC
          1929 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 244-1115
          Facsimile: (205) 244-1171
          E-mail: rcamp@cochranfirm.com


FANNIE MAE: Winnebago County Joins Transfer Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Dwyer, writing for WIFR, reports that Winnebago County
Recorder Nancy McPherson says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owe
Winnebago County $26,000 in unpaid real estate transfer taxes.

The county joined in a class action lawsuit filed June 21, 2012 in
federal court in Rockford seeking to compel Fannie and Freddie to
pay local counties overdue taxes.

Real estate transfer taxes in Illinois are supposed to be paid
when a property transfer is recorded.  For every $500 a property
is worth, a tax of 50 cents must be paid.  In Winnebago County,
since 2006, Freddie and Fannie have not paid these taxes on many
foreclosed properties they have purchased.

The mortgage giants claim they don't have to pay the tax because
they are exempt as a governmental entity.  On June 22, the Federal
Housing Finance Authority filed a federal lawsuit on Fannie and
Freddie's behalf in Chicago, asking a court to rule on whether
they are exempt.

The class action lawsuit filed Jun 21 alleges Fannie and Freddie
failed to pay the transfer tax to Kane, Whiteside, Will,
Winnebago, Dekalb, and Kendall counties.  The class action
represents all 102 Illinois counties, if they eventually choose to
join in the litigation.

Ms. McPherson says $26,000 is not "chump change," and the county
wants its money.  She says the county sent Fannie and Freddie a
letter in early spring trying to resolve the matter, but the
companies didn't respond.

A group of county recorders noticed the taxes weren't being paid
after an informal meeting back in December 2011.  Lawyers for
Dekalb County have taken the lead in the litigation.


FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Class Suit Over Excessive Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First American Commercial Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a First
American Bank, Case No. 2012-CH-23326 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
June 25, 2012) accuses First American of breach of contract,
fraud/intentional misrepresentation, constructive fraud/negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to First American's
misleading, deceptive and fraudulent practices related to
overdraft fees, and sustained damages resulting from the
Defendant's conduct.

Ms. Smith is a citizen of the state of Illinois.  She maintained a
First American checking account.

First American is an Illinois-chartered, privately held, full-
service bank with nearly 50 Chicago area locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  avold@siprut.com


FOREST LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Two Missouri Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. continues to defend two class action
lawsuits pending in Missouri, according to the Company's May 25,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. (FLI) and/or its subsidiary, Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI), are named as defendants in two
similar actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro
pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, arising from nearly identical allegations as those
contained in the federal actions in Massachusetts.  The first
action, filed on July 22, 2009, under the caption "Crawford v.
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on
behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa for
pediatric use.  Only FPI, which is headquartered in Missouri, is
named as a defendant.  The complaint asserts claims under the
Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and
seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  In October 2010,
the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who
purchased Celexa for pediatric use at any time prior to the date
of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for
personal injury.  Discovery is currently ongoing.  The second
action, filed on November 6, 2009, under the caption "St. Louis
Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa or Lexapro.
The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer
protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against both
of these actions.  At this time, the Company believes an
unfavorable outcome is less than probable and is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss,
but does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect
on the results of operations or financial position taken as a
whole.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Celexa & Lexapro MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated lawsuit styled In re
Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
pending in Massachusetts, according to Forest Laboratories, Inc.'s
May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. (FLI) and its subsidiary, Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI), are defendants in three federal
actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa or
Lexapro for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation."  These actions, two of which are purported
nationwide class actions, and one of which is a purported
California-wide class action, allege that FLI and FPI marketed
Celexa and/or Lexapro for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa and
Lexapro.  The complaints assert various similar claims, including
claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and state
common laws.  Discovery currently is ongoing.

FLI and FPI intend to continue to vigorously defend against these
cases.  At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome
is less than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably
possible loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe
losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of
operations or financial position taken as a whole.


FOREST LABORATORIES: "Martinez" Suit Remains Stayed in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Elmaria Martinez remains
stayed in New York court, Forest Laboratories, Inc. disclosed in
its May 25, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

On August 11, 2010, the Company was named as a defendant (along
with its subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI)), in an
action brought by Elmaria Martinez, a Company Sales
Representative, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption Elmaria Martinez
v. Forest Laboratories Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals Inc.  The
action is a putative class and collective action brought on behalf
of all current and former sales representatives employed by the
Company throughout the United States over the past three years and
all current and former sales representatives employed anywhere in
the State of New York over the past six years.  The action alleges
that the Company failed to pay its sales representatives overtime
pay as purportedly required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New York Labor Law.  The Company believes there is no
merit to Plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend this
matter.

On November 28, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order
granting certiorari in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
(the GSK action), a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which held, among other things, that the FLSA's
outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales
representatives.  On December 12, 2011, the Martinez action was
stayed until the Supreme Court issues its decision in the GSK
action.

At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less
than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. disclosed in its May 25, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012, that it remains a defendant in actions
filed in various federal district courts alleging certain
violations of the federal anti-trust laws in the marketing of
pharmaceutical products.

In each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical
manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and
conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products.
The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both individually
and, with respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek
injunctive relief and monetary damages.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered these actions coordinated (and,
with respect to those actions brought as class actions,
consolidated) in the Federal District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name
Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation."

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated
federal class action (which proceeded to trial beginning in
September 1998), including Forest, were granted a directed verdict
by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case.
In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial judge held that no
reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs
and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence
as to individual defendants paltry or non-existent."  The Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting
of the directed verdict in the federal class case in the Company's
favor.

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in the Company's favor, Forest has secured the voluntary
dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the
federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to
"opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases were included
in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the dismissal of
similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in
various state courts.  The Company remains a defendant, together
with other manufacturers, in many of the federal opt-out cases
included in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims
alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman
Act.  While no discovery or other significant proceedings with
respect to the Company has been taken to date in respect of such
claims, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be
required to actively defend such claims or to pay substantial
amounts to dispose of such claims.  However, by way of a decision
dated January 25, 2007, the judge handling the Robinson-Patman Act
cases for certain of a smaller group of designated defendants
whose claims are being litigated on a test basis, granted summary
judgment to those designated defendants against a group of
designated plaintiffs due to those plaintiffs' failure to
demonstrate any antitrust injury.  Subsequently, the Court also
granted the designated defendants' motion for summary judgment
with respect to the designated plaintiffs' effort to obtain
injunctive relief.  The litigation is continuing with discovery
regarding the claims of other plaintiffs.

At this time, the Company believes an unfavorable outcome is less
than probable and is unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of possible loss, but does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


INTUIT INC: Defends Suits Over TurboTax Tax Preparation Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. is defending two class action lawsuits arising from
its TurboTax income tax preparation software, according to the
Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2012.

On January 13, 2012, two putative class actions were filed against
Intuit Inc. in connection with its TurboTax income tax preparation
software: Smith v. Intuit Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California) and Quildon v. Intuit Inc. (California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County).  The plaintiffs in both cases
assert that the fees charged for the refund processing service
offered within TurboTax are "refund anticipation loans" and the
disclosures about those fees do not comply with California and
federal laws.  The Smith case was brought in federal court on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class and subclasses; the Quildon
case was brought in state court on behalf of a proposed California
class and subclasses.  Otherwise the two complaints are
substantively identical.  In each case the plaintiffs seek
monetary relief (including restitution, statutory damages, treble
damages, and interest) in an unspecified amount, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 22, 2012, Intuit removed
the Quildon case to federal court.  On March 16, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the Quildon case to state
court.  On March 19, 2012, Intuit filed motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims in both cases.  On May 25, 2012, the federal
court remanded the Quildon case to state court and denied as moot
the motion to dismiss that case.  A hearing on Intuit's motion to
dismiss the Smith case was scheduled for June 1, 2012.

The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses to
the claims asserted in these actions and intends to defend
vigorously against them.  The Company believes that liabilities
associated with these cases, while possible, are not probable, and
therefore, it has not recorded any accrual for them as of April
30, 2012.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be
reasonably estimated at this time.


JAMAICA PUBLIC: Energy Minister Lawyers Defend Exclusive License
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Henry, writing for Jamaica Observer, reports that the class-
action lawsuit challenging the all-island license granted to the
Jamaica Public Service (JPS), which commenced in the Supreme Court
on June 26, saw lawyers for the energy minister defending the
decision to issue the exclusive license.

Attorney Althea Jarrett from the Attorney General Chambers argued
before Justice Bryan Sykes that the minister did not contravene
the Electric Lighting Act -- as is being contended by the
claimants -- when he issued the license to the JPS.

In fact, Ms. Jarrett told the court that there was nothing in the
legislation that prevented the minister from exercising his
discretion in issuing the license for JPS, as a sole provider, to
supply electricity throughout the island and that the minister
acted in the best interest of the public in doing so.

"The minister wasn't acting unreasonably in granting the license,"
Ms. Jarrett submitted.  "He was of the view that he was acting in
the best interest of the public."

The license was issued in 2001 and renewed in 2007.

Claimants Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann Blaine and Cyrus Rousseau of
the group Citizens United for the Reduction of Electricity (CURE)
are challenging the legality of the license, claiming that section
3 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1890 stipulates that electricity
is to be provided by several different entities and in specified
areas.

On June 26, attorney Hugh Wildman, who appears for the claimants,
argued in court that the minister, in granting the exclusive all-
island license, acted in contravention of the Act and at the same
time fettered his powers to offer any other perspective player
from entering the energy market for the next 20 years.

The claimants are asking the court to declare that the license
issued was null and void.

Mr. Meadows, Ms. Blaine and Mr. Cyrus are also contending that the
Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR) had recommended that the
minister grant the license.  On June 26, Mr. Wildman also argued
that the recommendation was illegal and asked the court for a
declaration to that effect.

A ruling in favor of the claimants could result in a reduction in
the areas over which the JPS can provide electricity and open up
the way for other players to join the energy sector.

In this regard, Mr. Wildman argued that the court should not take
the ramifications into consideration in arriving at a decision.

The three claimants, who were in court on June 26, were prompted
to bring the challenge in light of the high electricity rates
being charged by the light and power company.

The court is expected to hear from attorneys for JPS and the OUR.


JUICY COUTURE: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Juicy Couture stiffs workers
for overtime and makes them work off the clock, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


KOREA: Lawyers Mull Class Action Against Lawmakers
--------------------------------------------------
Arirang reports that those who make laws in Korea might be facing
a legal challenge from those who practice law.

The Korean Bar Association announced on June 26 that they plan to
file a class action lawsuit against all lawmakers at the National
Assembly for not working, and to make them return their paychecks.

The assembly was supposed to hold its first plenary session
earlier this month and have appointed members to parliamentary
committees by now but the ruling and opposition parties have not
been able to narrow their differences on various issues, including
when to hold the first plenary session.

The association says it is unfair that politicians are getting
paid even though they haven't done any real work.


LEGG MASON: Defends Suits Over Violations of Securities Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits alleging
violations of securities laws, according to the Company's May 25,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2012.

Legg Mason has been the subject of customer complaints and has
also been named as a defendant in various legal actions arising
primarily from securities brokerage, asset management and
investment banking activities, including certain class actions,
which primarily allege violations of securities laws and seek
unspecified damages, which could be substantial.  In the normal
course of its business, Legg Mason has also received subpoenas and
is currently involved in governmental and self-regulatory agency
inquiries, investigations and, from time to time, proceedings
involving asset management activities.  In accordance with
guidance for accounting for contingencies, Legg Mason has
established provisions for estimated losses from pending
complaints, legal actions, investigations and proceedings when it
is probable that a loss has been incurred and a reasonable
estimate of loss can be made.

In a transaction with Citigroup in December 2005, Legg Mason
transferred to Citigroup the subsidiaries that constituted its
Private Client/Capital Markets ("PC/CM") businesses, thus,
transferring the entities that would have primary liability for
most of the customer complaint, litigation and regulatory
liabilities and proceedings arising from those businesses.
However, as part of that transaction, Legg Mason agreed to
indemnify Citigroup for most customer complaint, litigation and
regulatory liabilities of Legg Mason's former PC/CM businesses
that result from pre-closing events.  While the ultimate
resolution of these matters cannot be currently determined based
on current information, after consultation with legal counsel,
management believes that any accrual or range of reasonably
possible losses as of March 31, 2012, and 2011 is not material.
Similarly, although Citigroup transferred to Legg Mason the
entities that would be primarily liable for most customer
complaint, litigation and regulatory liabilities and proceedings
of the Citigroup Asset Management ("CAM") business, Citigroup has
agreed to indemnify Legg Mason for most customer complaint,
litigation and regulatory liabilities of the CAM business that
result from pre-closing events.

The Company says the ultimate resolution of other matters cannot
be currently determined.  In the opinion of management and after
consultation with legal counsel, due to the preliminary nature of
certain of these matters, Legg Mason is currently unable to
estimate the amount or range of potential losses from these
matters, and Legg Mason's financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows could be materially affected during a
period in which a matter is ultimately resolved.  In addition, the
ultimate costs of litigation-related charges can vary
significantly from period-to-period, depending on factors such as
market conditions, the size and volume of customer complaints and
claims, including class action lawsuits, and recoveries from
indemnification, contribution or insurance reimbursement.


MERCK & CO: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over False Vaccine Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that Merck has
known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective"
than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and
sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and
monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal
antitrust class action.

Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care sued Merck on June 25, the week
after the unsealing of a False Claims Act complaint two relators
filed in 2010.

Those relators, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, were Merck
virologists who claim in their unsealed complaint that they
"witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification
in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's
efficacy findings."

Mr. Krahling and Ms. Wlochowski claimed Merck's scheme caused the
United States to pay "hundreds of millions of dollars for a
vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."

"As the largest single purchaser of childhood vaccines (accounting
for more than 50 percent of all vaccine purchases), the United
States is by far the largest financial victim of Merck's fraud,"
according to the 2010 False Claims Act complaint.  "But the
ultimate victims here are the millions of children who every year
are being injected with a mumps vaccine that is not providing them
with an adequate level of protection.  And while this is a disease
that, according to the Centers for Disease Control ('CDC'), was
supposed to be eradicated by now, the failure in Merck's vaccine
has allowed this disease to linger, with significant outbreaks
continuing to occur."

The United States told a federal judge in April that it did not
want to intervene in the False Claims case, but reserved the right
to do so later.

Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims
its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective.

That claim "deterred and excluded competing manufacturers," who
would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they
believed they could craft a better product, Chatom says in its
complaint.

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if
it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it
risked losing its lucrative monopoly, according to the complaint.

That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming
such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states.

And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths,
including "manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the
test results," to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that
the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been
altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that
the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result.

Starting in the late 1990s, Merck set out on its sham testing
program with the objective of "report[ing] efficacy of 95 percent
or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy," the
complaint states.

Chatom says Merck initially called its testing program Protocol
007.

Under Protocol 007, Merck did not test the vaccine's ability to
protect children against a "wild-type" mumps virus, which is "the
type of real-life virus against which vaccines are generally
tested," the complaint states.

Instead, Chatom says, Merck tested children's blood using its own
attenuated strain of the virus.

"This was the same mumps strain with which the children were
vaccinated," the complaint states.

That "subverted" the purpose of the testing regime, "which was to
measure the vaccine's ability to provide protection against a
disease-causing mumps virus that a child would actually face in
real life. The end result of this deviation . . . was that Merck's
test overstated the vaccine's effectiveness," Chatom claims.

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve
more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune
system would never produce such antibodies, and that the
antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in
any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life . .
. virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the
complaint.

Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred
"with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior
management."

And as Merck's vaccine is the only game in town, the vaccine's
"significantly degraded" quality means "there has remained a
significant risk of a resurgence of mumps outbreaks," Chatom says
in its complaint.

It claims that the degraded quality of the Merck vaccine played a
role in a 2006 mumps outbreak in the Midwest, and in another
outbreak in 2009.

Those outbreaks caused the Centers for Disease Control to push
back its target date for eradicating the disease from 2010 to no
earlier than 2020, the complaint states.

"But no amount of extra time or dosages will be enough to
eliminate the disease when the vaccine does not work as
represented in the labeling," the complaint states.  "It will
merely allow Merck to continue to misrepresent the vaccine's
efficacy and thereby maintain its exclusive hold on the relevant
market with an inadequate vaccine."

Merck spokesman Ron Rogers told Courthouse News in a statement
that the False Claims lawsuit "is completely without merit," and
that Chatom's lawsuit is merely derivative of that case.

"Merck has presented information that demonstrated to the United
States Department of Justice that these allegations are factually
false, and after the Department conducted its own two-year
investigation, it decided not to pursue this lawsuit," Mr. Rogers
said.

In addition, he said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
"previously examined the issues raised in the lawsuit, and they
were resolved to the agency's satisfaction."

Chatom seeks to represent the class of all those who bought
Merck's mumps vaccine from Jan. 1, 1999 to today.

It seeks damages for monopolization under the Sherman Act,
violation of state consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment and
breach of warranty.

A copy of the Complaint in Chatom Primary Care, P.C. v. Merck &
Co., Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03555 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/Mumps.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Golomb, Esq.
          Steven Resnick, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Christopher McDonald, Esq.
          Kellier Lerner, Esq.
          Elizabeth Friedmn, Esq.
          LUBATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: hsalzman@labaton.com
                  bspersky@labaton.com
                  cmcdonald@labaton.com
                  klerner@labaton.com
                  efriedman@labaton.com

               - and -

          Stephen Dampier, Esq.
          DAMPIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          55 North Section Street
          Fairhope, AL 36532
          Telephone: (251) 929-0900
          E-mail: stevedampier@dampierlaw.com

               - and -

          R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq.
          CLAY, MASSEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          509 Church Street
          Mobile, AL 36602


MOTRICITY INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of Motricity, Inc. between June 18, 2010, and August
9, 2011, or in the Company's initial public offering.  The
defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R.
Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden,
Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H.
King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the Company's IPO,
including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation,
Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and
Pacific Crest Securities LLC.  The complaint alleges violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by all defendants
and under Sections 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and
those of the Company's former and current officers who are named
as defendants.  The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages,
including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission.

A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.  On
November 7, 2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead
plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the
Securities Act to its allegations of violations of the securities
laws and extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011,
to November 14, 2011.

On February 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class actions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


NORTH COAST: Faces Class Action Over Gas Lease
----------------------------------------------
Dan Pompili, writing for Tribune Chronicle, reports that a couple
on Perkins Greenville Road has filed a class-action lawsuit in
Trumbull County Common Pleas Court attempting to void an oil and
gas lease they signed with North Coast Energy of Youngstown.

The filing shows that Kenneth and Martha Cole will represent the
interests of the entire class, which they say consists of more
than 40 separate parties with identical claims against North
Coast.

The Coles claim that they signed a lease with North Coast in 2006
for a period of "greater than three years" in order for the
company to develop the gas and oil resources under their property.
They say that development has not happened.

North Coast has since sold the mineral rights to EnerVest
Operating LLC of Cleveland, a subsidiary of EnerVest in Houston.
That transaction took place in 2009.

The Coles allege in the suit that the contract was notarized by
Gale J. Burn, a notary public, but that Ms. Burn was never at the
Coles' home when the lease was executed, nor did she ever witness
their signatures.  Nor was Ms. Burn present to witness their
signatures for a memorandum regarding the lease.  The lease and
memorandum were executed by Steven Eakin on behalf of North Coast.

A declaration of pooling and utilization also was signed by the
Coles and allegedly notarized by Marie E. Meredith, whom the suit
says also was never present nor ever witnessed the Coles'
signatures to the document.

The Coles say the documents were all notarized after they applied
their signatures, and that Mr. Eakin and Ms. Burn had a practice
of illegally notarizing documents.

The filing says the Coles' suit represents all Ohio property
owners who executed leases with North Coast and whose leases were
executed by Mr. Eakin and Ms. Burn on behalf of North Coast,
notarized by Ms. Burn and are now owned completely or in part by
EnerVest.

The lawsuit questions whether Mr. Eakin, Ms. Burn or others
legally notarized the leases, whether Ms. Burn had a practice of
notarizing leases without witnessing signatures and whether such
leases are enforceable under Ohio law.

No working phone number could be found for North Coast.  Vice
president and chief administrative officer for EnerVest, Ron
Whitmire, said his company cannot comment on pending litigation.

John and Leslie Murray and Michael Stewart of Murray and Murray
law firm in Sandusky and Andrew Suhar of Suhar and Macejko law
firm of Youngstown are representing the plaintiffs.  None of those
attorneys could be reached for immediate comment on June 26.


PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Bluetooth Headset Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit alleging its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced
hearing loss, according to the Company's May 25, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2012.

Six class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company
alleging that its Bluetooth headsets may cause noise-induced
hearing loss.  Shannon Wars et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed
on November 14, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.  Lori Raines, et al. vs. Plantronics, Inc. was
filed on October 20, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.  Kyle Edwards, et al vs. Plantronics, Inc.
was filed on October 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court, Middle
District of Florida.  Ralph Cook vs. Plantronics, Inc. was filed
on February 8, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  Randy Pierce vs. Plantronics, Inc. was
filed on January 10, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.  Bruce Schiller, et al vs.
Plantronics, Inc. was filed on
October 10, 2006, in the Superior Court of the State of California
in and for the County of Los Angeles.  The complaints state that
they do not seek damages for personal injury to any individual.
These complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive
relief requiring the Company to include certain additional
warnings with the Company's Bluetooth headsets and to redesign the
headsets to limit the volume produced, or, alternatively, to
provide the user with the ability to determine the level of sound
emitted from the headset.  Plaintiffs also seek unspecified
general, special, and punitive damages, as well as restitution.

The federal cases have been consolidated for all pre-trial
purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Los Angeles before Judge Fischer.  The California State Court case
was dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The parties agreed in principle
to settle their claims.  The U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Los Angeles signed an order approving the final
settlement of the lawsuit entitled In Re Bluetooth Headset
Products Liability Litigation brought against Plantronics, Inc.,
Motorola, Inc. and GN Netcom, Inc. alleging that the three
companies failed to adequately warn consumers of the potential for
long term noise induced hearing loss if they used Bluetooth
headsets.  The companies contested the claims of the lawsuit but
settled the lawsuit on a nationwide basis for an amount which the
Company believes is less than the cost of litigating and winning
the lawsuit.

On September 25, 2009, the Court signed a judgment in the case
resolving all matters except the issue of outstanding attorneys'
fees, which will be split among the three defendants.  On
October 22, 2009, the Court issued an order setting the class
counsel's attorneys' fees and costs and the incentive award at the
maximum amounts agreed to by the parties in their settlement.  The
objectors to the settlement appealed the judgment issued by the
District Court.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Ninth Circuit) on August 19, 2011, issued a decision
vacating and remanding the case to the District Court.  On remand,
the District Court is instructed to properly exercise its
discretion in accordance with the principles set forth in the
decision by the Ninth Circuit.

In re-examining this case, the District Court may re-affirm its
prior approval of the settlement, disapprove the settlement or
approve a modified settlement.  The District Court must properly
analyze the conduct of the parties and their counsel in accordance
with the instructions of the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court
established a schedule to accomplish this analysis and to re-issue
its decision and judgment.

The Company says it will continue to defend its interests
throughout this process and the remainder of the case.  The
Company believes that any loss related to these proceedings would
not be material and have adequately reserved for these costs in
the consolidated financial statements.


PNC BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $90 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Bank has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a class action
lawsuit which accused the bank of improperly manipulating its
customers' debit card transactions in order to generate excess
overdraft fee revenues.  The lawsuit, part of multidistrict
litigation involving more than 30 different banks entitled In re
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, is pending before U.S.
District Judge James Lawrence King in Miami.

The lawsuit claims that PNC Bank's internal computer system re-
sequenced the actual order of its customers' debit card and ATM
transactions, by posting them in highest-to-lowest dollar amount
rather than in the actual order in which they were initiated by
customers and authorized by the bank.  According to the lawsuit,
PNC Bank's practice resulted in its customers being charged
substantially more in overdraft fees than if the debit card and
ATM transactions had been posted in the order in which they were
initiated and authorized.

"This is an outstanding recovery.  We are extremely pleased to
have achieved this result for PNC's customers who were adversely
affected by this anti-consumer practice," said Robert C. Gilbert
-- rcg@grossmanroth.com

Mr. Gilbert expects the settlement with PNC Bank to be presented
to the Court for preliminary approval later this summer.  As
Plaintiffs' Coordinating Counsel, Mr. Gilbert oversees and manages
all of the cases in this multidistrict litigation proceeding
together with Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel Aaron S. Podhurst and
Bruce S. Rogow.

PNC Bank is not the first bank involved in this multidistrict
litigation to settle similar claims.  In addition to a $410
million settlement with Bank of America approved last year,
settlements with JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citizens Bank and TD Bank
have been announced in recent months.

In addition to Mr. Gilbert, the principal lawyers involved in the
PNC Bank case are David M. Buckner -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- Seth
E. Miles -- sem@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman Roth in Miami, and
Adam Webb and Matt Klase of Webb Klase & Lemond in Atlanta.

Grossman Roth, P.A. was founded in Miami in 1988 and also
maintains offices in Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Sarasota and Key
West.  The firm concentrates its practice in the areas of class
actions and complex commercial litigation, catastrophic personal
injury, products liability, aviation, professional malpractice and
other cases involving significant economic or physical damages.


PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Judge Grants Class Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Johnson, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Tennessee has granted class-action
certification to a lawsuit against Psychiatric Solutions related
to stockholder inquiries about abuse occurring at facilities
across the country.

In its original 2009 complaint, Garden City Employees Retirement
System was seeking class-action status, charging that Psychiatric
Solutions executives misled stockholders when it came to
disclosing information about violence at one of Illinois' largest
psychiatric hospitals, owned by Psychiatric Solutions.

Only those who bought stock between February 2008 and February
2009 are eligible to join the class.

Psychiatric Solutions, previously based in Franklin, was purchased
by Universal Health Services in 2010 for $3.1 billion.

Former Psychiatric Solutions executives Joey Jacobs, Brent Turner
and Jack Polson are each individually named in the original
complaint. The trio sought to appeal the class-action status in
April but was denied that chance last month. The documents
outlining their defense are filed under seal.

Todd David -- todd.david@alston.com -- a partner with Alston &
Bird in Atlanta, said the judge's decision was procedural in
nature.

"We think that when the district court has full record before it
on the merits, the case should be dismissed.  We are very
comfortable with PSI's disclosure on the issues presented in the
case," he said.


REDDY ICE: Bankruptcy Court Approves Class Suits' Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc.'s settlement agreements of class action
lawsuits against it were approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of Texas, according to the Company's May 25,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On May 19, 2012, Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. announced that the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") confirmed the first amended
joint plan of reorganization (the "Plan") of the Company and its
direct subsidiary, Reddy Ice Corporation (together with the
Company, the "Debtors") under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

All voting classes of creditors voted in favor of the Plan, with
over 80% in amount and over 90% in number of the Debtors' first
and second lien noteholders and 100% of the Company's senior
discount noteholders voting in favor of the Plan.

In connection with the Plan, the Debtors entered into, and the
Bankruptcy Court approved, settlement agreements in respect of
certain outstanding litigation matters including (i) the putative
direct purchaser class action claims, (ii) the putative indirect
purchaser class action claims and (iii) the putative securities
class action claims.


SAMUEL LAWRENCE: Recalls 19,650 Sleigh Beds Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with importer, Samuel Lawrence Furniture, of High
Point, North Carolina, and manufacturer, Poh Huat Furniture Ind.,
of Malaysia, announced a voluntary recall of about 18,400 units of
King- and Queen-Size Bordeaux Collection Bed Frames in the United
States of America and 1,250 units in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The hardware holding the headboard and footboard can loosen or
detach, posing a fall hazard.

The firm has received one report of a Florida man who injured his
foot when the bed's footboard detached.

This recall includes Bordeaux Collection king- and queen-size
sleigh beds with wooden headboards and footboards in a cherry
finish.  Each bed also has two matching wooden side rails.
"Bordeaux" and the model number are printed on a white label on
the back of the headboard and footboard.  Model numbers for the
recalled beds are 8070-252 and 8070-253 for the queen-size and
8070-272 and 8070-273 for the king-size.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12208.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Malaysia and sold at
furniture stores nationwide from August 2009 to April 2012 for
between $400 and $500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled beds and
contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture to obtain a free repair kit.
For additional information, contact Samuel Lawrence Furniture
toll-free at (866) 572-9889 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Web
site at http://www.slf-co.com/


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Med. Equipment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Post reports that defendant St. Jude Medical has won a
class action lawsuit over allegedly defective medical equipment.

The more than 200-page trial judgment landed on June 26.

Apart from the defendant's win, one of the more interesting parts
of the case has been the issue of waiver of tort.  And the result
is a resounding . . . to be continued.

In the absence of liability, there was no need for Madam Justice
Joan Lax to address the issue of damages.  Therein lies the great
question of waiver of tort: Should class members who have suffered
no economic loss be entitled to economic recovery?

In her judgment, she has produced some very interesting comment on
the issue.  She notes that there are policy arguments both for and
against the recognition of the doctrine in Canadian tort law, and
this discussion will interest anyone arguing either for or against
the doctrine in the future.

Because the matter involves such important philosophical and
policy considerations, she notes that there will be debate on
whether the recognition of the waiver of tort doctrine should be
recognized by the court or by the legislature.  Then she offers
this: "On the basis of my experience, the answer to this and the
other questions surrounding the waiver of tort doctrine is not
dependent on a trial with a full factual record and may require no
evidence at all."

So for those hoping to have the matter decided once and for all,
the ending is something of a cliff-hanger.  Yet if Judge Lax is
correct, maybe we won't have to wait very long for the next
installment in the drama, for it could just as likely be an
interlocutory motion as a big case before the Court of Appeal.


STORM FINANCIAL: September 10 Trial Set for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Rae Wilson, writing for Fraser Coast Chronicle, reports that the
class action against banks involved in the Storm Financial debacle
is still "chugging along" as a September trial date draws closer.

Lawyer Stewart Levitt, from Sydney-based firm Levitt Robinson
which is leading the class action against two of the three banks,
said the interlocutory hearing in the Federal Court on June 27 was
another step toward the September 10 trial.

Levitt Robinson has piggy-backed an ASIC case accusing the
Commonwealth and Macquarie banks of supporting Storm's
unregistered managed investment scheme.

"The parties were supposed to agree on the common issues in the
proceedings and there's some arguments about whether ASIC's
pleadings should be partially struck out or leave granted to amend
them," he said.

Hundreds of people -- many of whom attended the June 27 hearing as
they loyally do each time the matter goes to court -- lost many
millions of dollars when Storm Financial collapsed in 2008.


SYNGENTA: Judge Approves Request to Pay Settlement Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert has ordered the
escrow agent of the settlement fund in the Syngenta case to pay a
Minnesota company about $25,000.

Judge Gilbert's directive came in an order issued late last week
and in response to a motion filed by the City of Greenville, the
lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against Syngenta Crop
Protection and Syngenta AG over the weed killer atrazine.

The Syngenta defendants agreed to settle the case for $105 million
late last month.  The city on June 19 asked Judge Gilbert to issue
an order directing $25,687.64 from the case's settlement fund to
BMC Group Class Action Services, a Minnesota company that has been
helping in the implementation of the settlement.

The company sent an invoice to the city earlier this month for
costs associated with the professional services it provided in
April and May as the settlement administrator.  According to the
invoice, that amount includes about $14,400 for designing
settlement notices and creating a settlement Web site and online
form, as well as $11,287.64 for costs associated with publishing
notice of the parties' agreement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, expenses incurred by
the settlement administrator must be paid from the fund within 30
days of invoice.

It also provides nearly $35 million in fees to St. Louis attorney
Stephen Tillery, who brought the case on behalf of the city in
2006, and co-counsel Scott Summy of Baron & Budd in Dallas.

Objectors to the settlement of fees or expenses to class counsel
have until Aug. 27 to file a statement with the court.  A
settlement fairness hearing has been scheduled to take place on
Oct. 22 in Benton before Judge Gilbert.

It appears that there is at least one pending motion in the case.

Judge Gilbert earlier this month sent two motions to Magistrate
Judge Philip M. Frazier, who has been handling preliminary matters
in the case, for disposition.

Both motions deal with documents filed in 2010. The Environmental
Law and Policy Center (ELPC) and Prairie River Network, both of
which intervened in the case in July 2011, asked Judge Gilbert to
unseal them as a matter of public access.  The Syngenta
defendants, however, filed a motion seeking the continued
confidentiality of the documents they contend deal with the
operations of Syngenta AG, a Swiss holding company that does not
manufacture or sell atrazine.

Although Judge Gilbert directed these motions to Frazier, he
denied as moot the interveners' motion for a status conference and
ruling on the sealed documents.  It appears from Judge Gilbert's
order, however, that the Syngenta defendant's motion requesting
the documents' confidentiality remains pending.

The proposed settlement stems from a 2010 lawsuit Mr. Tillery
filed in federal court on behalf of the city of Greenville and
other water providers in six Midwestern states.  Six years
earlier, he filed six separate class actions against manufacturers
of atrazine, which is a commonly used herbicide in agriculture.

The plaintiffs contend atrazine ran off farm fields and into their
water supplies, forcing them to pay for the testing and monitoring
of their supplies and the installation of filter systems.

If Judge Gilbert approves the proposed settlement, about 2,000
water districts will be eligible to make a claim for a fixed
payment of $5,000 and a share of the remaining balance after legal
fees and costs.


WET SEAL: Appeal From Denial of Class Standing Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification remains pending, according to The Wet Seal, Inc.'s
May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on
behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees
who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004,
through the present.  The Company was named as a defendant.  The
complaint alleges various violations under the State of California
Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions
Code.  On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  Plaintiffs have appealed.  The Company is
vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the
likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.  Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has
been accrued as of April 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: Appeals in California Employees' Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeals from the denial of motions for class
certification and to amend complaint remain pending according to
The Wet Seal, Inc.'s May 25, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
April 28, 2012.

On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of the Company's current and former employees who were
employed and paid by the Company from May 22, 2003, through the
present.  The Company was named as a defendant.  The complaint
alleged various violations under the State of California Labor
Code, the State of California Business and Professions Code, and
Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission.  On
December 17, 2010, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Motion For Leave to File An Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs have appealed both orders.  The Company is vigorously
defending this litigation and is unable to predict the likely
outcome and whether such outcome may have a material adverse
effect on its results of operations or financial condition.
Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has been accrued
as of April 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


WET SEAL: California Court Granted Bid to Compel Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
A California court granted in April 2012 The Wet Seal, Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit pending in
Los Angeles, California, according to the Company's May 25, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 28, 2012.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf
of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were
employed in California during the time period from October 27,
2007, through the present.  The Company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges various violations under the State of
California Labor Code and the State of California Business and
Professions Code.  On April 2, 2012, the court granted the
Company's motion to compel arbitration and to enforce the class
action waiver in the arbitration agreement.  The Company is
vigorously defending this litigation and is unable to predict the
likely outcome and whether such outcome may have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations or financial
condition.  Accordingly, no provision for a loss contingency has
been accrued as of April 28, 2012.

The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a leading
specialty retailer of fashionable and contemporary apparel and
accessory items.  As of February 27, 2010, the company operated a
total of 501 stores in 47 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, including 422 Wet Seal stores and 79 Arden B stores.
The Company's products can also be purchased online at
http://www.wetseal.com/or http://www.ardenb.com/


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *